Disparate treatment

If someone from the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, KOB, KKOB, or any other of the "establishment" press sent a message to APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta, they would enjoy an immediate response. (That is my supposition,
I will bow to controverting fact.)

She treats me disparately.

Well duh! you might conclude.

Under the law; the First Amendment, I am entitled to the same treatment by APS Communications Department as any other member of the press.

So what is the difference between me and a member of the establishment press?

To begin with, they have a larger follower-ship. If you study
the First Amendment, you will find no evidence that the
writers intended to protect the rights of a free press dependent
on the size of the follower-ship.

The "establishment press" is "credible". If you study the First Amendment, you will find no evidence that the writers distinguished between credible and incredible press. The laws on libel and slander offer necessary protection against a dishonest press.

The "establishment press" have personal and professional relationships with the leadership of the APS, I do not. Their personal and professional relationships fuel their willingness to let the leadership of the APS slide on their corruption and incompetence/lack of qualifications.

The "establishment press" has APS' back, and I most certainly do not. If you study the First Amendment, you will find no evidence that the writers sought to protect only the press who supported the government. Considering the times. the diametric opposite is the more likely.

Monica Armenta has a legal obligation to treat any member of the press the same as any other member of the press.

Armenta is free to ignore the Constitution because she is propped up by the Modrall law firm and a large bore pipeline to classroom dollars. They will litigate an exception to the law for Armenta et al.

She is free to ignore the Constitution because the "establishment press" are in cahoots.




photo Mark Bralley